Advertising TPO's - Hypothetically!

[Gary Prentice]

When LA's confirm a TPO, a copy, including the identifying map, must be made available for public inspection. The order and map must remain available until it is revoked.

 

The public inspection part reads 'at the offices of the authority which made it'

 

The Blue Book observes 'in the Secretary of States view, LPA's should also be able to let members of the public know, over the telephone, whether or not particular trees are the subject of a tree preservation order or situated in a CA within 48 hours.'

 

So, hypothetically, you fell a tree in reliance of the authorities website - no TPO indicated- later to find that the IT fellow is on annual leave and hasn't got around to updating the website.

 

The authority has, hypothetically, entered the Order on the register at their offices, which a telephone inquiry would have revealed, forefilling their legal obligation.

 

Where would you stand, hypothetically?

[hazzygawa]

Hypothetically or reality

[Gary Prentice]

Purely hypothetical, I have my own personal opinion on what our 'learned friends' would argue before the judge, but from the letter of the law I wonder.......

[nepia]

The Blue Book observes 'in the Secretary of States view, LPA's should also be able to let members of the public know, over the telephone, whether or not particular trees are the subject of a tree preservation order or situated in a CA within 48 hours.'

 

 

 

A slight derail - so soon; apologies - but how many LAs are refusing to do the bit in bold?

 

Re your original question my guess would be that to the letter of the law you'd breached a TPO - it was legally in existence after all - but a Court would impose minimal penalty, if any; it may even refuse to convict. That all assumes the matter got as far as Court, which I doubt.

[Gary Prentice]

A slight derail - so soon; apologies - but how many LAs are refusing to do the bit in bold?

 

Re your original question my guess would be that to the letter of the law you'd breached a TPO - it was legally in existence after all - but a Court would impose minimal penalty, if any; it may even refuse to convict. That all assumes the matter got as far as Court, which I doubt.

 

No apologies necessary, the purpose is to encourage debate. If the authority are unwilling to provide information over the phone, a quote of the Sec. of State's opinion usually brings them around to your way of thinking:laugh1:

 

RE, the original question, the onus is on you, as the defendant, to prove your innocence. Without a screen capture, at the time of the search, how do/would you prove that the site wasn't subsequently updated. After all, councils can be somewhat tardy at times.

[nepia]

No apologies necessary, the purpose is to encourage debate. If the authority are unwilling to provide information over the phone, a quote of the Sec. of State's opinion usually brings them around to your way of thinking:laugh1:

 

RE, the original question, the onus is on you, as the defendant, to prove your innocence. Without a screen capture, at the time of the search, how do/would you prove that the site wasn't subsequently updated. After all, councils can be somewhat tardy at times.

 

 

I've known the council concerned for many years; mention of the Sec of State's opinion won't change them. After all they will have gone to e-mail only TPO enquiries to save money on staff I guess.

 

To take the main point to its nth degree the LA could be asked to produce analysis of its website to show dates/times of entries and alterations. Refusal to do so would speak strongly for a defendant claiming 'there was no TPO recorded when I checked' and could well be overturned by the Court, i.e. the LA would be ordered to produce such analysis in the name of justice as the defendant obviously has no access to such information.

 

All hypothetical of course.

[JonnyVine]

I think the outcome would depend on how well you presened your case, however, technically you have broken the law as a TPO existed at the time of felling.

 

You may be lucky and get a judge that has suffered "tardy" antics of the LA

 

Attempting to get any information over the phone regarding anything from our LA only seems to benefit the phone company.

[daltontrees]

I expect the Blue Book is best practice but not law, so the presumption initially would be that you had committed an offence. The Council would not have broken the law by not having a perfect on-line register, or even any on-line register.

 

If it had been a really new TPO and the Council hand't quite added it to an existing list, would it really be a defence to say neither you nor the client were unaware of a brand-new Order?

 

Older TPOs could be different. But the key wording in your question is the 'in reliance upon'. If the Council's website said something like 'if there are any TPOs in the area they are listed on this website' and you were checking if there were any older Orders, then plainly you have discharged your obligation by checking the website and the Council could not prosecute successfully. On the other hand, if the website said something like 'these are TPOs in the area that we have so far added to the website' you would not be on such solid ground. Ultimately a question of reasonability, and whether you had made all reasonable checks and if you had found what claimed to be a definitive source it would not be unreasonable to rely upon it.

[Gary Prentice]

I was thinking along the lines of a new order, so reasonable actions would concur with my way of thinking.

 

A new TO suggested we consulted the website, as a search by himself was more work. When asked about accuracy he conceded the point , which kind of raised this thread.

 

So to continue, hypothetically, when does the order come into force? If you fell at 8am and the postman 'serves' the order to the occupier at 9am. Offence or not?

 

I've had an argument, with CA 211's, that the order being drawn up by legal at the 6 week deadline is immaterial. Ie not served so fair game to fell.

 

Excuse the brevity of the post, sat in tescos waiting for the tills to open - sunday trading

 

Ps good replies thankyou

[nepia]

So to continue, hypothetically, when does the order come into force? If you fell at 8am and the postman 'serves' the order to the occupier at 9am. Offence or not?

 

Absolutely not; there was no TPO in force when you felled and you could not have been expected to know about one in the pipeline. That's why gobs get cut on a Saturday morning once contractors have got wind of TOs showing interest: the TO's not back in the office until Monday.